an initial conceptualization of virtual scenario planning

Running head: VIRTUAL SCENARIO PLANNING 1

Copyrighted ©2013 Rochell McWhorter and Susan Lynham

An Initial Conceptualization of Virtual Scenario Planning

Rochell R. McWhorter

The University of Texas at Tyler

Susan A. Lynham

Colorado State University

Note: This is the last author’s copy of this paper. The final definitive copy of this work is available online

at: http://adh.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/30/1523422314532096.abstract?rss=1 and will soon be

available in print in the Advances in Developing Human Resources Journal, 2014.

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/30/1523422314532096.abstract?rss=1

VIRTUAL SCENARIO PLANNING 2

Abstract

The Problem

Recent disruptive events introduced high volatility and uncertainty into the contemporary

organizational environment whereby well-established organizations found scenario planning

useful to craft strategy. However, because scenario planning is typically a very costly endeavor,

it is less accessible to new startups, small businesses, non-profits, and large-scale organizations

that could greatly benefit.

The Solution

We propose an initial conceptual model whereby sophisticated technologies that typically enable

virtual events be utilized to facilitate virtual scenario planning activities for real-time

participation from geographically disbursed locations reducing expenses and providing access to

one of HRD’s strategic learning tools. We posit that HRD professionals be involved in planning

and implementation through the scope of technology development within the context of Virtual

HRD.

The Stakeholders

This article provides researchers and scholar-practitioners with a conceptualization of current

thinking around the notion of utilizing technology to create an online environment conducive for

scenario planning. This article will be of particular interest to those involved in formulating

organizational strategy including those where costs of face-to-face scenario planning and other

forms of strategic initiatives are either time or cost prohibitive.


Keywords: Virtual Scenario Planning, Virtual HRD, Leadership Development, Virtual

Teams, Technology Development

An Initial Conceptualization of Virtual Scenario Planning

Scenario Planning is well acknowledged in HRD literature and has been presented as

“HRD’s strategic learning tool” (Chermack & Swanson, 2008, p. 129) for assisting organizations

in planning for times of uncertainty. Scenario planning has been shown to facilitate a number of

valuable processes and outcomes including: learning collectively and institutionally, the

development of an increased capacity for leadership and strategy development and their

implementation, improved organizational performance, managing disagreement as an asset,

increased cross-functional communication, and increased clarity of strategic options (See:

Chermack, 2011; Schwartz, 1991; McWhorter, Lynham & Porter, 2008; Van der Heijden, 2005;

Van der Merwe, 2008).

In the past decade, scenario planning has realized a “renaissance” (Wilkins & Kupers,

2013, p. 120) and a “sustained surge” (Rigby & Bilodeau, 2007, p. 21) following the attacks of

September 11, 2001, the global credit crisis, and recent recession; all of which brought high

volatility and uncertainty into the organizational environment (Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, &

Niles, 2009; Ilbury & Sunter, 2011; Ramirez, Selsky & van der Heijden, 2008; Tuna, 2009; Van

der Heijden, 2005; Wilkinson & Kupers, 2013). A number of organizations such as IBM, Shell

Oil, Sprint and Google have utilized scenario planning as part of their strategic planning

(McWhorter & Lynham, 2011).

While very useful, scenario planning efforts of forward-thinking organizations are quite

costly in terms of time and travel to bring together many stakeholders in a single location over

multiple days (Johnston, Gilmore & Carson, 2008; McWhorter, Lynham & Porter, 2008). Some


have also suggested that travel required to participate in scenario planning activities is harmful to

the environment (Fazarro & McWhorter, 2011).

The purpose of this article is to begin to lay the groundwork for an initial

conceptualization of the phenomenon of Virtual Scenario Planning (VSP)—one that utilizes

modern information communication technologies (ICTs) to connect key stakeholders (such as

scenario planning experts, facilitators, and selected participants) to conduct scenario planning.

To fulfill this purpose, we present (1) an overview of conceptually informing literatures

foundational to VSP, (2) findings and how they inform initial conceptualization of a model of

VSP, and 3) concluding implications for related theory, research and practice.

Conceptually Informing Literatures Foundational to Virtual Scenario Planning (VSP)

According to Lynham (2002), conceptual development is concerned with the formulation

of initial ideas within a relevant world context such that it “depicts current, best, most informed

understanding and explanation of the phenomenon, issue, or problem…[developing] an informed

conceptual framework that provides an initial understanding and explanation of the nature and

dynamics of the issue, problem, or phenomenon” (p. 231). This article inaugurates the initial

conceptualization of Virtual Scenario Planning (VSP) in HRD by first examining three informing

literatures foundational to the building of such a conceptual framework, namely, Scenario

Planning (SP), Virtual HRD (VHRD), and Virtual Scenario Planning (VSP). An overview of

each follows.

Scenario Planning (SP)

Although the history of scenario planning spans decades, the first formal theory of

scenario planning was synthesized by Chermack (2003a) who identified key outcomes of this

process as being scenario stories, mental models, learning, improved decision-making, and the


ability of organizations to respond to change (See also Chermack, 2004; Chermack & Lynham,

2002; Lynham, Provo & Ruona, 1998; Ringland, 2006; Schwartz, 1991; Senge, 1990; Van der

Merwe, 2005; Wack, 1985, as cited in Chermack, 2003b).

Scenario Planning has been defined as “a structured process of thinking about and

anticipating the unknown future…to examine possible future developments that could impact

individuals, organizations, or societies and to find directions for decisions that would be… most

beneficial in any future environment” (Rajalanti, van der Hiejden, Janssen & Pehu, 2006, p. ix).

This broad contextual basis suggests that scenario planning is useful at the individual

(Schoemaker, 1995), small business (Foster, 1993), city-wide (Docherty & McKiernan, 2008),

regional (Center for Houston’s Future: The Region’s Think Tank, 2012), corporate (Shell.com,

2013), large non-profit (Means, Patrick, Ospina & West, 2005), and even national (United

Nations Environment Programme, 2012), continental (UNAIDS, 2005) and (perhaps in near

future) global levels. Indeed, the literature supports each of these levels of contextual utility of

scenario planning—also underscored by a notable scenario planner:

Scenarios are interesting because they don’t promise prediction, they actually encourage

us to keep an open mind about the fact that we live in an uncertain world. And, that

uncertainty is both empowering, not just frightening. And so the role of scenarios…is to

help lead us individually and collectively…and organizations and societies [to] keep an

open mind…and prepare more options about what might happen. (Angela Wilkinson in

The Smith School, 2011, [video], 1:02)

A number of methodologies have emerged for conducting a scenario planning project

(Illbury & Sunter, 2011; Ringland, 2006; Van der Merwe, 2008; Wilkinson & Kupers, 2013). A

globally experienced scenario planner, Louis Van der Merwe (2008), offered insight into


scenario planning through his Scenario Development Framework (SDF) giving us an idea of

what typical face-to-face (F2F) scenario planning looks like. He noted that a scenario-based

planning project normally develops over a six to nine month period. Seven common phases of a

typical project are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1: Van der Merwe’s (2008) Seven Phases of a Typical Scenario Planning Project

Phase Activity Description Resources/Method

1 Interviews with

decision makers, and

informal leaders in

the organization

(Internal

Environment)

Conduct, Document, Analyze and

Provide Feedback on 10-25 face-to-face

(F2F) interviews.

In Person or Phone Interviews,

recorded and transcribed

utilizing a computer.

2 Gathering Feedback,

Sorting and

Structuring of

Dynamics (External

Environment)

Gather information specific to the

environment in which the organization

operates, as well the social,

technological, economic, environmental

forces and critical trends.

Accessing Industry News

outlets, eNewsletters, Electronic

Databases, Web-based Industry

Magazines.

3,4 Rigorous Analysis

and Building

Capacity for Strategic

Conversation

Workshops held to consolidate and

integrate a set of 2-4 scenarios held 6-8

weeks apart to allow for deep reflection

and analysis.

Quantitative and Qualitative

Analysis involving the use of

tools such as systems loops and

links, story maps, ladder of

inference and a conversation

quality checklist. The

integration of scenarios is

normally done as a series of 3-4

F2F workshops of two days

each.

5 Constructing a

scenario artifact

Provides a written record of the

activities; the artifact should “use a wide

variation of tables and illustrations to

reflect both explicit and implicit aspects

of storylines” (p. 227).

Creation of a scenario

workbook, scenario web site, or

utilizing other media depicting a

set of vividly titled scenario

stories as “oral history of the

future” (p. 229).

6 Sustaining strategic

conversations

Holding a series of forums where

leadership comes together to discuss the

dynamics that may affect the

organization.

Series of forum-styled meetings

that capture the strategic

conversations.

7 Documenting

noticeable results

Because scenario-based strategy “builds

assets in the organization that could be

called intangible…it is essential to

measure...and document the results

Utilize instruments that

document co-created or surfaced

(tacit) knowledge; also, measure

quality of scenario conversations


flowing from the process” (p. 229). and the effects of the scenario

processes on the organization

Van der Merwe’s (2008) framework is further useful because it offered eight strategic

uses for scenario planning. These were given as: (1) decision scenarios (testing for robustness),

(2) normative scenarios (pushing a community toward a specific purpose), (3) community

dialogue (engaging a community), (4) policy alignment (enabling various ministries for aligning

policies), (5) organization alignment and engagement (providing an umbrella focus for strategic

conversation and alignment), (6) environmental scanning (enabling organization to learn

about/take positions on specific assumptions their strategy is based on), (7) scenario thinking (for

embedding in all decision making/choices), and (8) leadership coaching (for a personal inquiry)

(p. 225).

Burt and Chermack (2008) remarked that “scenario planning is an effective approach to

bring managers together to discuss their concerns” (p. 286). Further, Wilkinson and Kupers

(2013) said scenarios “create a safe place for dialogue and for acknowledging uncertainty—

allowing an organization to see realities that would have otherwise be overlooked” (p. 121). As

stated, scenario planning is not done in isolation—it is a social activity involving multiple

stakeholders. Historically carried out through F2F interactions, scenario planning is a highly

interactive endeavor that “builds social capital within and beyond the organization…aid[s] in

navigating complexity and conflict [and] managing disagreement” (Wilkinson & Kupers, 2013,

p. 127).

Virtual HRD

Virtual HRD is a relatively new concept evolving in direct relation to increased

availability of sophisticated technologies for increasing human learning and performance

(McWhorter, 2010; Yoon & Lim, 2010). As presented in the 12(6) issue of Advances in


Developing Human Resources introducing Virtual HRD to the field (McWhorter & Bennett,

2010), one definition of Virtual HRD is: a “media-rich and culturally relevant web environment

that strategically improves expertise, performance, innovation, and community-building through

formal and informal learning” (Bennett, 2009, p. 364). Further literatures relevant to Virtual

HRD and informative for this exploratory conceptualization include Technology Development,

Virtual Technologies, and Virtual Teams. Each is briefly considered next.

Technology Development. While Virtual HRD is primarily concerned with the

environment created from the joining of people and technology, the concept of Technology

Development is operational and an area of expertise for HRD professionals (Bennett &

McWhorter, 2014). Bennett (2010) advocated for the inclusion of Technology Development as a

fourth pillar of HRD alongside the existing pillars of: Organization Development, Career

Development and Training and Development.

According to Bennett and McWhorter (2014), Technology Development (TD) can be

viewed in two ways (or as having two facets): (1) a tool-level focus providing support for HRD

interventions in practice; and, (2) as strategically implemented technology requiring the informed

application of HRD processes, theories, and models. Thus, traditional HRD processes and

techniques lend support for TD with both of aforementioned facets appearing relevant for initial

conceptualization of VSP. For instance, the tool-level focus is crucial as we examine what

technology tools might be useful to enable VSP at the various stages presented in Table 1. Also,

traditional HRD processes and techniques that might be suitable or even critical for the success

of a VSP project ought to be determined. The next sub-section of literatures considered relevant

to Virtual HRD and informative to this exploratory conceptualization of VSP is that of virtual

technologies.


Virtual technologies. Modern technologies have evolved to the point where workers are

not only connecting to and through technology, but now they have the capability to connect

within the technology synchronously (in real-time) in an environment for collaborating with

others (Kapp & O’Driscoll, 2010; McWhorter, 2010). With the advent of sophisticated

workplace platforms, virtual collaboration of both small and large scale are becoming

commonplace in many organizations (Ausburn & Ausburn, 2014; Bennett, 2009, 2010; Bennett

& McWhorter, 2014; Fagan, 2014; Fazarro & McWhorter, 2011; Germain & McGuire, 2014;

McWhorter, 2010, 2014; McWhorter, Roberts & Mancuso, 2013; Raisor & McWhorter, 2014).

Consider a worker’s choices for collaboration with stakeholders such as the modern

telephone (cellular or voice-over internet protocol—VOIP), email, instant or text messaging

(Bennett, 2014a; Thomas, 2014), video conference (i.e. Skype.com or Zoom.us), webinar (i.e.

GoToMeeting.com, WebEx.com, or AdobeConnect.com), virtual world (Ausburn & Ausburn,

2014; Fagan, 2014; Mancuso, Chlup & McWhorter, 2010; McWhorter & Lindhjem, 2013), and

social media (Delello & McWhorter, 2014). These choices illustrate but a few virtual

technologies that utilize a traditional desktop computer or a myriad of mobile alternatives such as

smartphones, mini-tablets or laptops through bring your own device (BYOD) initiatives in the

workplace (Gruman, 2012; Marks, 2013).

The ubiquitous nature of workplace technologies allow us to consider collaboration not

tied to a specific location (Ardichvili, 2008; Bell, 2011; Bennett & Bierema, 2010; Chapman &

Stone, 2010; Fagan, 2014; Thomas, 2014), and affords participation in VSP activities anytime,

anywhere. Such technologies are also beneficial because they typically allow for easy archival

of documents and meetings through video playback accessible for on-demand and in the cloud

for a look-back during future meetings (Fazarro & McWhorter, 2011; McWhorter, Roberts,


Mancuso, 2013). In addition, many of the platforms available are highly integrated, scalable and

user-friendly and designed to promote collaboration and the sharing of ideas (Sreedhar, 2014).

When compared to virtual collaboration, traditional F2F meetings are much more costly

in time and consume many environmental and financial resources, so ‘greening’ scenario

planning might likely also be a preferred choice (Fazarro & McWhorter, 2011; Rogers, 2011).

Another advantage of using virtual technologies for collaboration beyond convenience and cost

savings is that of global participation. It is safe to speculate that utilization of contemporary

digital platforms allow for increased participation by additional key stakeholders (including

expert scenario planners) as virtual attendees are no longer confined to a geographical location.

However, participants are cautioned to remove distractions such as daily tasks and routines while

engaging in virtual activities such as VSP (Fazarro & McWhorter, 2011).

Virtual teams. In 2010, McWhorter pointed to virtual teams as a place to look for

Virtual HRD describing them as being “composed of workers connecting remotely to carry out

an objective or purpose” (p. 626) and expounded on the earlier work of Dewey and Carter (2003)

who described a case of virtual communication with a global virtual team who planned the

Future Search Pre-Conference for the American Society of Training and Development (ASTD)

leadership in 2001. Using only email (asynchronous communication) and teleconferencing

(utilizing telephone conferencing), the team planned the Pre-Conference in its entirety. They

found that as a virtual planning team, there were four emergent themes from their case that may

be useful for others considering virtual teams: “(a) the importance of energizing [a] highly

effective leadership; (b) the presence of intrinsic rewards that motivated team members; (c) the

necessity of a trustful environment for collaboration; and (d) creation of specific ‘enabling’

virtual communication techniques and protocols” (p. 250).


Workman (2005) also discussed virtual team culture and compared proximal (F2F) teams

with virtual teams. He found that virtual teams more tightly controlled performed better than

more loosely controlled virtual teams. Also, he commented that “Explicit virtual team

management apparently served to help regulate the forming, storming, norming, and performing

type of group adjustments (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) typically experienced by teams by serving

to establish expectations and guidelines for group objectives quickly” (p. 454). These findings

are helpful and informative when considering the formation of virtual teams for VSP.

Bennett and Bierema (2010) noted that trust, incenting, and monitoring are important

factors when considering work with virtual teams. They commented that trust is “potentially

more difficult to establish than in face-to-face environments” (p. 641) and “traditional beliefs

about incenting and monitoring work may not hold true in virtual teams” (p. 641). While their

findings lend caution to those considering forming virtual teams for the purpose of scenario

planning, their and others’ findings—some of which are highlighted above—suggest it

reasonable to consider that a number of the steps in Van der Merwe’s Seven Phases of a Typical

Scenario Planning Project (see Table 1) can be accomplished through virtual teaming

methodologies (See Wild, Griggs & Li, 2005).

Virtual Scenario Planning (VSP)

Sophisticated virtual and social media technologies have been posited as plausible

technologies for scenario planning methodology (McWhorter & Lynham, 2011). McWhorter

(2011) remarked that VSP was possible and noted that two primary streams of inquiry, namely,

Scenario Planning and Virtual HRD were:

…moving closer to one another as sophisticated technologies are enabling the

phenomenon of VHRD in the workplace…as we connect to one another within


environments whether it be on a traditional computer or mobile device, developmental

efforts for virtual work teams and processes such as virtual training and development are

already being realized [whereby] virtual scenario planning (utilizing synchronous

technologies such as videoconferencing and virtual worlds for scenario planning) is a

reasonable next step to link geographically dispersed stakeholders. (p. 114)

McWhorter (2011) indicated that the technology existed for such a strategic endeavor as VSP,

and would be expected to be increasingly available to such end in the future. Additionally, a

search for examples of VSP-related projects revealed two instances of scenario planning that

primarily utilized modern technologies as their source of methodology. Each instance is

considered next.

In 2007, a scenario planner documented the first known case of VSP (Cascio, 2007). He

integrated various technologies for stakeholders in the U.S., Europe and New Zealand for the

purpose of real-time scenario planning. For example, he utilized voice through his digital call

system, email for private messages, shared documents through Google Docs, utilized Google

Spreadsheets for quick lists and spreadsheet, and utilized the text chat channel for collaboration

and questions.

If participants had a comment they would type the word HAND into the chat window

thus requesting to speak on audio. Speaker’s names were typed in bold type by one of the

moderators so participants would know who was speaking. The scenario planner remarked that

“everything else was…more or less parallel to a live event approach” (para. 9). The planner

noted that the primary advantage over a live event was that the text window became the most

novel part of their online technology, and that the text chat/backchat engaged the participants—

becoming an analytic to measure involvement. Additionally, he viewed the backchat or


backchannel (text conversation; Educause, 2011) in text window a stark contrast to side chat

(audio conversation) in live events that is typically highly discouraged.

Cascio (2007) concluded that he would use the process again and considered it a valuable

tool, but as an augmentation, not a replacement for F2F scenario planning workshops and

recommended a mix of hybrid meetings such as the first meeting online for informing key

stakeholders, then the second F2F to enhance social bonding/networking. Then, hold follow-up

meeting(s) virtually “as the participants now have a good working relationship” (para. 13). He

remarked: “one thing is absolutely certain: it is entirely possible to run a futures event using

distributed technology and still retain participant interest—and generate useful, novel content, as

well” (para. 1).

A second instance of VSP was located by the authors. Raford (2011) conducted extensive

research on web-based participatory approaches utilizing Web 2.0 and social media technologies

to crowdsource (asking the crowd on the Internet for innovative ideas; See also: Boudreau, &

Lakhani, 2013) to enhance urban scenario planning projects like roads and infrastructure often

projected 50 years into the future. He conducted focused research into qualitative scenario

planning and noted the inclusion of many stakeholders was ideal when contemplating making

decisions for decades into the future for a geographical region.

In addition, Raford’s (2011) work is important into conceptualizing VSP because he

documented a number of the limitations of traditional face-to-face scenario planning

methodology: (1) traditional scenario planning is labor-intensive including significant time

investment gathering data, conducting background interviews, group workshops and numerous

F2F discussions, (2) the number of key stakeholders that participate and benefit from the process

is limited due to time and financial constraints, and, (3) traditional participants are typically


subject matter experts (SMEs) and senior-level decision makers therefore limiting the input from

a variety of perspectives and information sources.

Through a mixed-methods multiple case study approach, Raford (2011) examined the

usefulness of technology for augmenting traditional scenario planning methodologies for urban

planning. The first case “Futurescaper” (See Raford, 2010, p. 82) employed Raford’s original

design and programming for an online platform to store reactions from individuals at various

locales for generation of drivers and trends and clustering them in high-level themes for

visualization. His second case, “SenseMaker Scenarios” (p. 83) followed up on themes found in

the first case and found to be useful for gathering large sets of participant contributions with

potential for generation of scenarios. Another case, “Foresight Engine” (p. 84), utilized Web 2.0

tools in a gaming platform to gather approximately 5,000 opinions from 81 countries on the

project website (see pp. 84-85). Raford (2011) concluded that “open-ended participation is a

strong example of leveraging stakeholder participation online” (p. 85). A third utilized social

media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs), and emails for promoting the project and employed 25 in-

depth video interviews over Skype with “thinkers in the field” (p. 86) that were later posted to

YouTube garnering in excess of 17,000 views. We can compare these cases to Van der Merwe’s

(2008) Step 2 described in Table 1.

The findings from the initial study indicated participants were involved at a greater

number and from more diverse locations and disciplines as compared to typical F2F scenario

planning. However, overall findings revealed that although there were more participants, fewer

participants were heavily engaged in the process. The data revealed that “less than 20% of the

total users (48 of 237) contributed over 70% of the content” (p. 178) with a similar pattern seen

in the second case. Therefore, one challenge will be the engagement of participants in virtual


events. Overall, Raford (2011) found that utilizing online technology for scenario planning was

advantageous specifically for time reduction in collecting critical information. Also, online tools

were seen as helpful to “automate or distribute basic analytical tasks amongst many users,

allowing for more complex analysis of their interaction in a shorter period of time” (Raford,

2011, p. 178). Also, the role of visuals and multimedia had a positive effect on the online

participatory scenario planning project by increasing interest in the subject and the enjoyment of

the experience for the participants. Overall, the conclusion was that technology-enabled

methodologies held promise for scenario planning due to their speed, efficiency, and

“distributed, crowd-sourced analysis” (Raford, 2011, p. 197).

The conceptual nature of VSP as evidence of a TD initiative is further explored for its

potential to utilize the “capacity of an organization to promote and leverage organizational

learning” (Bennett & McWhorter, 2014, p. 18) through the integrated use of sophisticated

technologies that bring together stakeholders in real-time across multiple modalities for events in

a scenario planning process. A number of modern technologies hold promise for the steps

outlined by an experienced scenario planning practitioner (van der Merwe, 2009) thereby

allowing us to consider VSP. See Table 2 for suggested methods for VSP. Note that these

suggestions in no way assume that these are the only technologies available for this purpose as

there are many varieties of modern technologies that could be beneficial for the steps outlined by

Van Der Merwe (2008).


Table 2: Van der Merwe’s (2008) Seven Phases of a Typical Scenario Planning Project

Augmented with Suggested Methods for VSP

Phase Activity Description Typical Resources/Method Suggested Methods for VSP

1 Interviews with

decision makers, and

informal leaders in the

organization (Internal

Environment)

Conduct, Document,

Analyze and Provide

Feedback on 10-25 face-

to-face (F2F) interviews.

In Person or Phone

Interviews, recorded and

transcribed utilizing a

computer.

Interviews could be

recorded on a web

conference platform such

as Zoom.us for later

playback for transcribing.

Survey and Polling

technology could be

utilized for gathering input

from decision makers and

informal leaders, as

appropriate.

2

Gathering Feedback,

Sorting and

Structuring of

Dynamics

(External

Environment)

Gather information

specific to the

environment in which

the organization

operates, as well the

social, technological,

economic,

environmental forces

and critical trends.

Accessing Industry News

outlets, eNewsletters,

Electronic Databases, Web-

based Industry Magazines.

Scenario Team could

utilize an electronic

repository such as

Dropbox.com and give

access to all participating

members for their review.

Survey, Polling, and Social

Networking platforms

could be utilized for input,

gathering feedback.

Gamification-type

platforms for gathering

multiple ideas/trends in a

short period of time.

3,4

Rigorous Analysis and

Building Capacity for

Strategic Conversation

Workshops held to

consolidate and integrate

a set of 2-4 scenarios

held 6-8 weeks apart to

allow for deep reflection

and analysis.

Quantitative and Qualitative

Analysis involving the use of

tools such as systems loops

and links, story maps, ladder

of inference and a

conversation quality

checklist is utilized.

The integration of scenarios

is normally done as a series

of 3-4 F2F workshops of

two days each.

Workshops could be

facilitated through

integrated web

conferencing platforms

such as On24.com or

Blackboard Collaborate or

other program utilizing a

digital whiteboard.

Quantitative analysis

software (i.e. SPSS.com)

and Qualitative analysis

software such as NVivo 10

(QSR.com) could be

utilized for large sets of

qualitative data.


5

Constructing a

scenario artifact

Provides a written record

of the activities; the

artifact should “use a

wide variation of tables

and illustrations to

reflect both explicit and

implicit aspects of

storylines” (van der

Merwe, 2008, p. 227).

Creation of a scenario

workbook, scenario web site,

or utilizing other media

depicting a set of vividly

titled scenario stories “oral

history of the future” (p.

229).

A myriad of web-based

options are available to

archive the scenario

artifacts such as a

Wordpress.com blog, a

Facebook or LinkedIn

page, or housed on an

Intranet for employee-only

access if proprietary

information is a concern.

Scenario stories could be

depicted in eBook format,

video format, depicted in a

3D virtual reality/virtual

world setting where

avatars could move around

and examine models and

key artifacts (McWhorter,

2010; Short, 2010, 2013),

or enhanced with

augmented reality.

6 Sustaining strategic

conversations

Holding a series of

forums where leadership

comes together to

discuss the dynamics

that may affect the

organization

Series of forum-styled

meetings that capture the

strategic conversations

Series of forum-styled

meetings that capture the

strategic conversations that

can be held over web

conferencing platforms can

be used and archived for

on-demand viewing. Or,

held in social networking

venues in real-time or

asynchronously (i.e.

Twitter or LinkedIn)

7 Documenting

noticeable results

Because scenario-based

strategy “builds assets in

the organization that

could be called

intangible…it is

essential to measure..and

document the results

flowing from the

process” (van der

Merwe, 2008, p. 229)

Utilize instruments that

document co-created or

surfaced (tacit) knowledge;

also, measure quality of

scenario conversations and

the effects of the scenario

processes on the

organization.

In addition to traditional

methods, these results

could be documented and

studied through electronic

surveys such as

Qualtrics.com with

participation from various

stakeholders, particularly

requesting open-ended

responses.

Findings and How They Inform

Initial Conceptualization of Virtual Scenario Planning (VSP)


The informing literatures considered above help inform initial conceptualization of VSP

in a number of ways. First, they help us represent the conceptual location of the construct of VSP

in the informing (and foundational) literature within the field of human resource development

(HRD). Second, they enable us to identify descriptive constructs and sub-constructs integral to

the theoretical conceptualization of VSP. Third, they enable us to begin constructing and thereby

developing a better understanding of VSP as an integrated system of inputs, processes, and

outputs.

Conceptually Locating the Phenomenon of VSP in the Landscape of HRD

The phenomenon of VSP occurs within the landscape of the field of HRD, at the

intersection of Scenario Planning and Virtual HRD—indicating that VSP occurs in the

confluence of these two bodies of HRD-related knowledge. Figure 1 graphically represents this

conceptual location.

Figure 1. Conceptually Locating Virtual Scenario Planning (VSP)

Context of Praxis: The Field of HRD


Informing Constructs and Sub-constructs

The previously presented informing literatures—on scenario planning, virtual HRD and

virtual scenario planning—enable us to begin to identify conceptually the descriptive constructs

and sub-constructs integral to the conceptualization of the phenomenon of VSP. Table 3 depicts

a synthesis of these informing constructs and sub-constructs from the first two bodies of

informing knowledge, and how they inform the initial conceptualization of VSP.

Table 3: How Constructs and Sub-constructs from Foundational Literature Inform Initial

Conceptualization of VSP

Informing Constructs

and Sub-Constructs from

Foundational Literature

How Inform Conceptualization of VSP

Scenario Planning (SP) SP utilizes has participant(s) and SP expert(s)

SP is “HRD’s strategic learning tool”, then VSP should be

about strategy and learning

7 phases of a typical scenario process

Outcomes of Scenario Stories, Changed mental models

Strategic conversation, improved decision making should be

outcome of VSP

Ability to respond to change should be outcome of VSP

Virtual HRD (VHRD)

VHRD is culturally relevant networked environment so VSP

will contain elements of culture and online environments

should include tools and processes to bring out the cultural

elements

VHRD is a networked environment that is intentional and

strategic; therefore, selection of an environment for VSP should

be intentional and strategic to facilitate the VSP process

VHRD is about improving community-building; therefore, VSP

should also enhance this characteristic as well

VHRD includes both formal and informal learning; therefore

aspects of VSP will also involve both types of learning

- Technology

TD integrates technology with HRD objectives and VSP

should have HRD objectives and integrated technology as

well


Development

(TD)

TD should improve performance; therefore, VSP should

also have improving learning capacity and performance

through the integration of technology and HRD objectives

HRD professionals will need to have competencies in the

selection of integrated environments to optimize learning

and performance in virtual environments

- Virtual Teams

Virtual Teams connecting remotely for VSP will require

highly effective leadership to optimize VSP with specific

purpose outlined

A trustful environment should be established when utilizing

virtual teams for VSP

Specific enabling protocols and techniques for virtual

communication should be established for VSP when

utilizing the virtual team approach

Explicit Virtual Team management should be examined

such that establishment of trust, expectations, guidelines for

the group

- Virtual

Technologies

Sophisticated technologies should be examined for their

usefulness for VSP including high collaboration tools (i.e.

visual social media) and archiving for later on-demand

review since there may be a number of days or weeks

between VSP events

Time should be set aside is for VSP for participants to be

immersed in the VSP activities so that they are not

distracted by daily tasks and routines

Digital artifacts from the VSP activities should be readily

available

VSP as Interacting Inputs-Processes-Outputs (a First Conceptualization)

A content analysis of the foundational bodies of literature briefly explicated, and an

exploratory synthesis of findings reflective of the conceptual location and informing constructs

and sub-constructs (see Figure 1 and Table 3), together inform an initial conceptualization of the

phenomenon of VSP as an integrated system of inputs, processes and outputs. Figure 2

illustrates this initial, and indeed exploratory, conceptualization.


Figure 2: An Initial and Exploratory Conceptualization of VSP as Interacting System of

Inputs—Processes—Outputs

Inputs Processes Outputs

Identified participants

with knowledge of

online environments

SP expert(s) with

experience working in

online environments

Specified Purpose

identified

Media-rich

environment

Collaborative,

networked Web 2.0

technologies chosen

intentionally and

strategically

Analytical technologies

Virtual team approach

Tools and processes

enabling cultural

elements of

organization or project

aim

Specific time set aside

for scenario planning

with minimized

distractions

“Getting the system in

the room”

7 Phases of SP

processes

Virtual Teams

Community Building,

Trust

Virtual Team

communication

Virtual strategic

conversations

Virtual team

management and

monitoring of

objectives and incenting

Participant engagement

Scenario stories

Digital artifacts of

virtual collaboration

Changed mental

models

Improved decision

making

Increased technology

competencies

Ability to respond to

change

Formal and informal

learning

Innovation

Virtual Learning


The preceding presentations, analysis and synthesis of the foundational bodies of

knowledge informative to an initial conceptualization of the phenomenon of VSP holds promise

for further development and refinement of the same. This initial, and exploratory theorizing work

has a number of evident implications for HRD- and phenomenon-related research, theory and

practice. As such it should offer, at the very least, food-for-thought for current planners,

researchers, theorists, and practitioners.

Implications for HRD

What might be possible implications of this venture into the initial (and exploratory)

conceptualization of the phenomenon of VSP for the broader field of HRD? A discussion of

some of related possibilities follows.

Implications for Related Research

Three notable related research implications can be ventured. The first is that extended

inquiry should be carried out to garner cases of VSP such as locating scenario planners who may

have done parts of or all scenario planning in an online venue. Processes and results of such

cases have yet to be studied and documented in the literature. The second is that inquiry using

participants who have both experience with scenario planning and virtual activities might be

useful in informing the further development of VSP. A third is that developing methodologies

for researching VSP in the natural environment where it occurs (online) should be developed for

this context and studied. A fourth might be comparing and contrasting VSP with a spectrum of

conventional approaches to, kinds and outcomes (espoused and actualized) of scenario planning.

Such contrasting will help understand and highlight similarities and differences, as well as

strengths and weaknesses, among these kinds of, approaches to and philosophies of scenario

planning.


Implications for Related Theory

A few discernable theory-related implications might be concluded from this exploratory

venture of the concept of VSP. First, that while this exploratory theorizing has laid the

groundwork for an initial conceptualization of VSP, there is much more needed to advance

conceptual development and understanding of this phenomenon. As a result, additional and

focused theory building processes need to be followed, including further conceptual

development, operationalization, testing and application (Lynham, 2002), such that VSP can be

examined, described and understood in its real-world context. A second implication is that it can

be expected that a theory of conventional scenario planning will not be the same as one of virtual

scenario planning (McWhorter, 2011; McWhorter & Lynham, this article). For instance, units of

participant and contextual diversity, global boundary, levels of engagement and technological

expertise are not included in Chermack’s (2003a) theory of conventional SP—but would need to

be included in that of a theory of VSP (McWhorter & Lynham, this article). Furthermore, and

significantly, neither transferability (from context to context) nor transportability (to different

kinds of participants) (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011) can be assumed from the one theory to the

other.

Implications for Related Practice

Similarly to research and theory, a number of notable implications for related practice

might be ventured. The first is that using VSP allows for more richness (breadth) and depth of

inputs to the scenario planning—such as scanning—because it allows for more stakeholders to

be involved from multiple locations in the ongoing process. Following on this first implication

another is that using VSP activities allows access to such planning for those not otherwise able to

do so due to time and cost constraints. This implication in turn can be expected to afford the


organization/user a better chance of getting-the-whole-system-in the room, and thus optimizing

participation and ‘future’ preparedness of its members. It also can be expected to create

opportunities for a more diverse group of VSP participants and planners than possible in

conventional scenario planning.

A fourth discernable implication is that technology can archive activities for on-demand

playback. Doing so would in turn allow for further review and carryover from one session to the

next thus promoting cohesion and maximize the learning of participants from the process

(Nafukho, Graham & Muyia, 2010). Another implication is that utilizing VSP allows for a more

sustainable environment for “green computing” whereby carbon emissions are reduced due to

virtual communication alternatives. For organizations/users committed to as much this potential

impact on their ‘green ratio’ would likely be an important consideration. And, for nonprofit

organizations and small businesses struggling to stay viable, open source scenario planning at

relatively little or cost can be critical. Also, technology can be used to analyze some initial

scanning and other data if designed into the process, enabling a wider and deeper scan of this

important input information to scenario planning. Concomitantly, the ‘reach’ and ‘range’ of

scenario planning and related activities can be extended beyond the conventional

model/approach, enabled by using the medium of technology as core process.

It is important to underscore a further implication for practice, namely, that HRD

professionals should receive proper training in educational institutions for technology

development as one of the four primary content areas so that they can assist with, for example,

VSP initiatives. Suggestions by Fagan (2014) and Bennett (2014a) described the pairing of HRD

and Information Systems students to cross-pollinate and build their competencies in both areas.

A similar idea would be to utilize Service Learning projects or Internships (paid or unpaid)


where HRD students engage in experiential learning within technology-related organizations or

departments that utilize various forms of technologies such as organization-wide systems (i.e.

ERPs, Intranets) as well as professional usage of social networking platforms that develop social

media skills (Delello & McWhorter, 2014), and eLearning efforts for training and development.

Such knowledge will help HRD professionals to build expertise to design and leverage

technology for proper fit between VSP purpose and participants and methodology used (TD).

Finally, HRD professionals should understand scalability and proper selection of tools to support

VSP activities (technology development), particularly for large VSP efforts. Such understanding

will optimize the user experience in VSP such that the tool is not a hindrance to the scenario

planning process, but rather it is a facilitator of VSP.

This project, on the phenomenon of virtual scenario planning (VSP) and informing initial

conceptualization thereof, represents an exploratory endeavor of theorizing, and early steps in the

journey towards theory-building. Even so, the initial outcomes presented offer promise for

further and more rigorous such work. While we are all aware of the rapidity of change in the

contexts in which the field of HRD finds itself, none is both more daunting and promising than

that of the increasing complexity of these contexts, and the pace of technology development.

Virtual scenario planning (VSP) seems to hold much promise in helping us to bridge both and in

so doing continue to inform rigor and relevance within the field.


References

Ardichvili, A. (2008).Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice:

Motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4),

541-554.

Bell, S. (2011). A conference wherever you are. Library Journal, 136(16), 28-31. Retrieved from

http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/community/libraryculture/891899-

271/a_conference_wherever_you_are.html.csp

Bennett, E. E. (2009). Virtual HRD: The intersection of knowledge management, culture, and

intranets. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 362-374. doi:

10.1177/152342202237522

Bennett, E. E. (2010). The coming paradigm shift: Synthesis and future directions for Virtual

HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(6), 728-741. doi:

10.1177/1523422310394796

Bennett, E. E., & Bierema, L. L. (2010). The ecology of virtual HRD. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 12(6), 632-647.

Bennett, E. & McWhorter, R. R. (2014). Virtual Human Resource Development. In N.

Chalofsky, T. Rocco, & L. Morris (Eds.), The handbook of human resource development:

The discipline and the profession.

Boudreau, K., & Lakhani, K. (2013). Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard

Business Review, 91(4), 60-69.

Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt., G., Cairns, G., & van der Heijden, K. (2005). The origin and

evolution of scenario techniques in long-range business planning. Futures, 37(8), 795-

812. doi 2048/10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003


Burt, G., & Chermack, T. (2008). Learning with scenarios: Summary and critical issues.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2), 285-295.

Cascio, J. (2007). The virtual workshop: Or, how to run a scenario event in your pajamas with

nobody the wiser. Retrieved from

http://openthefuture.com/2007/01/the_virtual_workshop_or_how_to.html

Center for Houston’s Future: The Region’s Think Tank (2012). Scenarios 2040. Retrieved from

http://www.futurehouston.com/cfhf.cfm?a=cms,c,261,3,29

Chapman, D. D., & Stone, S. J. (2010). Measurement of outcomes in virtual environments.


doi:10.1177/15233422310394792

Chermack, T. J. (2003a). A theoretical model of scenario planning. Human Resource

Development Review, 3, 301-325.

Chermack, T. J. (2003b). A methodology for assessing performance based scenario planning.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(2), 55-64.

Chermack, T. J. (2004). Improving decision making with scenario planning. Futures, 36(3), 295-

309. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00156-3

Chermack, T. J. (2011). Scenario planning in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Chermack, T. J., & Lynham, S. A. (2002). Definitions and outcome variables of scenario

planning. Human Resource Development Review, 1(3), 366-383.

doi:10.1177/1534484302013006

Chermack, T. J., & Swanson, R. A. (2008). Scenario planning: Human Resource Development’s

strategic learning tool. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2), 129-146.


Delello, J. A., & McWhorter, R. R. (2014). New visual social media for the higher education

classroom. In G. Mallia (Ed.), The social classroom: Integrating social network use in

education (pp. 368-393). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4904-

0.ch019

Dewey, J. D., & Carter, T. J. (2003). Exploring the future of HRD: The first future search

conference for the profession. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(3), 245-256.

Docherty, I., & McKiernan, P. (2008). Scenario planning for the Edinburgh city region.

Environment & Planning C: Government & Policy, 26(5), 982-997. doi:10.1068/c0665r

Educause.edu (2010). 7 things you should know about backchannel communication. Retrieved

from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7057.pdf

Fazarro, D., & McWhorter, R. (2011). Leveraging green computing for increased viability and

sustainability. Journal of Technology Studies, 37(2). Retrieved from

scholar.lib.vt.edu ejournals JOTS v37 v37n2 fazarro.html

Foster, M. J. (1993). Scenario planning for small businesses. Long Range Planning, 26(1), 123-

129.

Fourie, P. (2007). The future of AIDS in Africa: Lessons from two scenario projects. Ajar-

African Journal of AIDS Research, 6(2), 97-107.

Gruman, G. (2012). Who’s embracing BYOD? Infoworld.com. Retrieved from

http://www.infoworld.com/d/consumerization-of-it/guess-whos-embracing-

consumerization-probably-not-who-you-think-197872

Ilbury, C, & Sunter, C. (2011). The fox trilogy: Imagining the unimaginable and dealing with it.

Cape Town, South Africa: Human & Rousseau and Tafelberg.


Johnston, M., Gilmore, A., & Carson, D. (2008) Dealing with environmental uncertainty: The

value of scenario planning for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). European

Journal of Marketing, 42(11) 1170 - 1178

Kapp, K. M., & O’Driscoll, T. (2010). Learning in 3D: Adding a new dimension to enterprise

learning and collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Pfieffer.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Lynham, S. A. (2011). Criteria for assessing theory in human resource

development from an interpretive perspective. Human Resource Development

International, 14(1), 3-22.

Lynham, S. A. (2002). General Method of Theory-Building research in applied disciplines.


Lynham, S.A., Provo, J.M., & Ruona, W.E.A. (1998). The role of scenarios in business strategy

and human resource development. In R.J. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of

Human Resource Development (pp. 169-177). Baton Rouge, LA: AHRD.

Mancuso, D. S., Chlup, D. T., & McWhorter, R. R. (2010). A study of adult learning in a virtual

world. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(6), 681-699.

Marks, G. (2013). Do you really need a BYOD policy? Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2013/02/25/do-we-really-need-a-byod-

policy/

McWhorter, R. R. (2010). Exploring the emergence of virtual human resource development.


McWhorter, R. R. (2011). Scenario planning as the development of leadership capability and

capacity; and virtual human resource development (Dissertation). College Station, TX:

Texas A&M University.


McWhorter, R. R., & Bennett, E. E. (Eds.). (2010). Exploring the construct of Virtual Human

Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(6).

McWhorter, R. R., & Bennett, E. E. (2012). Facilitating transition from higher education to the

workforce: A literature review of ePortfolios as Virtual Human Resource Development.

Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference, Denver, Colorado.

February 29-March 4, 2012.

McWhorter, R. R., & Lynham, S. A. (2011). Virtual scenario planning: A strategic learning tool

for the small business and non-profit organization. Presented at the Southern

Management Association Conference, November 9-12, Savannah, Georgia.

McWhorter, R. R., Lynham, S. A., & Porter, D. E. (2008). Scenario planning as the development

of leadership capability and capacity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2),

259-284.

McWhorter, R. R., & Lindhjem, K. A. (2013). Virtual learning environments: How they can

benefit nanotechnology safety education. IEEE Nanotechnology Magazine, 7(2), 15–17.

doi: 0.1109/MNANO.2013.2260460

McWhorter, R. R., Mancuso, D. S., Chlup, D. T., & Demps, E. L. (2009). The emergence of

virtual human resource development (T. J. Chermack, Ed.). Proceedings of the 2009

Academy of Human Resource Development, Washington, DC.

McWhorter, R. R., Mancuso, D. S., & Hurt, A. C. (2008). Adult learning in a virtual

environment. In T. J. Chermack, J. Storberg-Walker, & C. M. Graham (Eds.), Refereed

proceedings of the 2008 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Research

Conference (pp. 1148-1152). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource

Development.


McWhorter, R. R., Roberts, P. B. &, Mancuso, D. (2013). Exploring professional online

conferences for the adult learner. In C. Boden-McGill and K. P. King, eds. Developing

and Sustaining Adult Learners (pp. 267-281). Adult Higher Education Alliance (AHEA)

Book Series.

Means, E., Patrick, R., Ospina, L., & West, N. (2005). Scenario planning: A tool to manage

future water utility uncertainty. American Water Works Association, 97(10). 68-75.

Nafukho, F. M., Graham, C. M., & Muyia, H. M. A. (2010). Harnessing and optimal utilization

of human capital in virtual workplace environments. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 12(6), 648-664.

Niles, D. (2009). The secret of successful scenario planning. Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/03/scenario-planning-advice-leadership-

managingplanning. html

Raford, N. (2010). Emergent futures mapping with Futurescaper. Retrieved from

http://noahraford.com/?p=807

Raford, N. (2011). Large scale participatory future systems: A comparative study of online

scenario planning approaches. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from

http://www.noahraford.com/files/Raford_PhD_Thesis_vFinal.pdf

Raisor, C., & McWhorter, R. R. (2014). Teaching technical communication through virtual

world technology. In S. Gregory, M. Lee, B. Dalgarno, & B. Tynan (Eds.), Virtual worlds

in online and distance education. Athabasca University Press

Rajalanti, R., van der Hiejden, K., Janssen, W., & Pehu, E. (2006). Scenario planning to guide

long-term investments in Agricultural Science and Technology: Theory and practice from

a case study in India. New York: The World Bank. Retrieved from


http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Scenario_Planning_DP_29_final.

pdf

Ramirez, R., Selsky, J. W., & van der Heijden, K. (2008). Conceptual and historical overview. In

R. Ramirez, J. W. Selsky and K. van der Heijden (Eds.).Business planning for turbulent

times: New methods for applying scenarios, (pp. 17-30). London, UK: Earthscan.

Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2007). A growing focus on preparedness. Harvard Business Review,

85(7/8), 21-22.

Ringland, G. (2006). Scenario planning: Managing for the future, 2nd

edition. West Sussex, UK:

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Rogers, S. (2011). Green conferencing: Reducing a meeting’s carbon footprint. Retrieved from

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/green-conferencing-

reducing-a-meetings-carbon-footprint

Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1995). Scenario Planning: A tool for Strategic Thinking. Sloan

Management Review.

Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world.

New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York: Doubleday/Currency.

Shell.com (2013). Shell scenarios. Retrieved from http://www.shell.com/global/future-

energy/scenarios.html

Short, D. (2010). Foreword: Reflections on virtual HRD from a scholar-practitioner. Advances in

Developing Human Resource Development, 12(6), 619-622.


Short, D. (2013). Designing a 3D Virtual HRD environment from a scholar-practitioner

perspective. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(3), 270-283.

The Smith School (2011). Angela Wilkinson, World Forum on Enterprise and Environment.

[video] Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH5zGc8FxWU

Sreedhar, S. (2014). Tech tools that can save pointless business meetings. Forbes. Retrieved

from http://www.forbes.com/sites/sungardas/2014/02/28/tech-tools-that-can-save-

pointless-business-meetings/

Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and

Organization Studies, 2, 419–427.

Tuna, C. (2009). Pendulum is swinging back on scenario planning. Wall Street Journal, Eastern

Edition, 254(4), B6. Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683295589397615.html

UNAIDS(2005). AIDS in Africa: Three Scenarios to 2025. Retrieved from

http://www.unaids.org

United Nations Environment Programme (2012). Short-term country scenarios – Mont Fleur.

Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/ieacp/iea/training/manual/module6/1248.aspx

Van der Merwe, L. (2005). Planning for certainty in uncertain times: Strategic conversation,

scenario based planning, and developing a sustainable business model. Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: Centre for Innovative Leadership.

Van der Merwe, L. (2008). Scenario-based strategy in practice: A framework. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 10(2), 216-239. doi 10.1177/1523422307313321

Wild, R. H., Griggs, K. A., & Li, E. Y. (2005). An architecture for distributed scenario building

and evaluation. Communications of the ACM, 48(11), 80-86.


Wilkinson, A., & Kupers, R. (2013). Living in the futures: How scenario planning changed

corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 118-127.

Workman, M. (2005). Virtual team culture and the amplification of team boundary permeability

on performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 435-458.

Yoon, S. W., & Lim, D. H. (2010). Systemizing virtual learning and technologies by managing

organizational competency and talents. Advances in Developing Human Resources,

12(6), 715-727. doi:10.1177/1523422310394796

Bios

Rochell McWhorter is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Development, College of Business

and Technology, at The University of Texas at Tyler. Her publications include Virtual HRD, scenario

planning and visual social media. She proposed and was lead editor of 2010 Special Issue titled

“Exploring the Construct of Virtual Human Resource Development” in 12(6) issue of Advances in

Human Resources. She chaired the Technology, eLearning and Virtual HRD Track, AHRD International

Conference in the Americas. Rochell can be reached at: [email protected]

Susan Lynham is an Associate Professor at Colorado State University. Her research areas include

responsible leadership, scenario planning based leadership development, national human resource

development, constructivist inquiry, and theory development in applied disciplines. She is a past board

member of the Academy of HRD, is past Editor-in-Chief of Advances in Developing Human Resources

journal, and serves on the editorial board of several core journals in the field. Susan can be reached at:

[email protected]

Note: This is the last author’s copy of this paper. The final definitive copy of this work is available online

at: http://adh.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/30/1523422314532096.abstract?rss=1 and will soon be

available in print in the Advances in Developing Human Resources Journal, 2014.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://adh.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/30/1523422314532096.abstract?rss=1